The Defendant’s statement is not consistent from the investigation stage to the original court’s trial, and is not consistent with the Defendant’s statement as to the amount, time, and date and time of the crime. However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant’s statement is merely a correction of the details of remittance to the Defendant, and it does not constitute a ground to deny the credibility of the statement, the Defendant may be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that the complainant's statement was not reliable, and the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts.

Judgment

The lower court determined that the facts charged in this case cannot be deemed as proven without reasonable deliberation on the following grounds: (a) the time when the Defendant made a false statement to the complainant while explaining the grounds for “2. Judgment” in detail; (b) the date and amount of payment that the complainant paid to the Defendant as the price for the purchase of E-Sale Rights; and (c) K did not make any statement as to whether the Defendant requested payment of additional money as the price for the E-Sale as the price for the purchase of E-Sale; and (d) K did not make any statement as to whether the Defendant requested payment and received payment to the complainant as the price for the purchase of E-Sale; (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise; and (c) there is no doubt about the credibility of the Defendant’s statement.

The lower court did not have any further evidence submitted in relation to the facts charged of this case, and closely examined the judgment of the lower court in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.